Thursday, May 01, 2008

Bohoslovska Pulls Tymoshenko’s Hair Over Privatization

Here’s an exciting fragment from the Ya tak dumayu (That’s What I Think) talk show on Channel 1+1:

MP Inna Bohoslovska, PRU: Currently, the Tymoshenko government behaves like a lady of loose morals who has an inheritance from her ancestors…no I won’t shut up about it…Hanna Bezulyk, host: Please, in this case…

Inna Bohoslovska: We just can’t play circus about this!Hanna Bezulyk: Inna Hermanivna [patronymic], please. We’ve known each other for a long time.

Inna Bohoslovska: That’s right.Hanna Bezulyk: In this case, out of respect for me, please, use a different terminology…

Inna Bohoslovska: …I’m talking about the government…Hanna Bezulyk: …you can talk about the government, but, please, use a slightly different terminology.

Inna Bohoslovska: All right, imagine…Hanna Bezulyk: Thank you.

Inna Bohoslovska: Imagine the heirs who inherited a treasure trove, and that dozens of generations had worked to amass these treasures, which they passed on to this girl, or family. And she, in turn, instead of…well, we know that if there’s no money to build something, to pay for the kids’ education, or if there’s a difficult situation, someone needs medical care, it is then — and only then — that we sell the best gifts that we receive from our ancestry. Today, the government is offering to sell this treasure trove just to splurge it all on consumption. Nothing gets built, nothing gets invested, it just gets consumed, that is, the girl who gets this simply wants to splurge it all or, by giving it away to someone dirt cheap, to show how generous she is.

Inna Bohoslovska, a seasoned Tymoshenko demonizer, rubs salt into the Prime Minister’s battle-scarred plan to auction off Odesa Port to proceed with her pet program of “returning” Soviet savings. (Tymoshenko’s privatization agenda has met stiff resistance from President Yushchenko.)

But if you think of Bohoslovska’s argument purely in terms of Friedman v. Keynes, or guns v. butter, think again.

If you look beyond the dovish veil of “don’t kill the goose that lays the golden eggs,” you may find a sleeper cell of hawkish privatizers.

In Ukrainian politics, “to privatize or not to privatize” is not the question. “To pay the market price or not to pay the market price,” that’s the question.

9 comments:

Anonymous
said...

"Media in 10 of the 12 non-Baltic, former Soviet countries are considered “not free” by Freedom House. The other two – Ukraine and Georgia – are “partly free.” Across this broad region, Freedom House estimates that only 18 percent of people live in environments with free media. Christopher Walker, director of studies at the organization, says the area is “on the crest of the global wave” of declining liberties for journalists.If that isn’t enough, a newly released survey demonstrates how effective the Russian government has been in convincing its public that free media aren’t something to celebrate."http://www.tol.cz/look/TOL/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=4&NrIssue=267&NrSection=2&NrArticle=19578

I am not sure I understand why Bohoslavska was asked to restate her words - if anything slanderous or libelous is stated by her, PM Tymoshenko could take her to court. ;) I am being very naughty knowing full well that as an MP, and deputy immunity from prosecution (though it does not bar slander/libel suits), they can say whatever they like with no concern for the consequences and frequently do.

I remember when she was first recruited for PoR (and so do u :)This is why this legal mouthpiece was 'head hunted' and it does seem to me or perhaps just missing it that Herman is less on the airwaves ???

"In Ukrainian politics, “to privatize or not to privatize” is not the question."

I would disagree with u here - to privatize or not is a ques. with the government owning and operating a tremendous amount of companies.

PoR had while in office, many opportunities to privatize and chose not to do so - could argue that they were prevented from doing so but that could be argued. Instead it seems that the interest was in 'appropriating funds' from these cash cows. (Still cannot understand how Naftohaz could make so little money year after year.) And there is a strong resistance to selling them off - thinking that will not be able to 'dip' into the piggybank from time to time. The leap that has not been made is that in the long run more can be made by the country and people in having a profitable company (of course the legal system in Ukraine needs alot of reform).

One of the problems today is that privatizing in the current system without changes guarantees that what has happened in the past will happen again. But as no one is truly reforming the legal system is it worth remaining "frozen in amber"?

While the arteries of Russian democracy are clogged with oil, Ukrainian democracy has too much metal in its mouth.

Bohoslovska didn’t say anything out of the ordinary. She had joined the Party of Regions as the ambitious frontwoman of two lackluster political projects: Komanda ozymoho pokolinnya (2002) and Viche (2006). Every time she attacks Tymoshenko, it looks like a girl thing.

I haven’t seen Herman for a week or so, but I don’t see any threat to her career coming from Bohoslovska. Herman and Bohoslovska have different rhetorical styles and appeal to different target audiences. Herman butters up to western Ukraine; Bohoslovska rants to eastern Ukraine.

By indulging in ad hominem, Bohoslovska discredited herself more than she discredited Tymoshenko. (This talk show attracts an educated audience.)

I recall Bohoslovska mercilessly tongue-lashing Azarov — until she joined the Party of Regions. Just listen to this!

Good point about “cash cow” tactics being an alternative to privatization. Again, it’s all about manipulating government property for a huge profit or not paying the market price for it. In other words, the private sector lives off the public sector, bigtime. That’s the game of stabilnist.

The government is run by oligarchs who have stolen, and continue to steal, billions of dollars for their own gain - through government.

With a few notable exceptions, such as Tymoshenko, they have done nothing for the people. Not even through promised charitable works - notably Akhmetov and Pinchuk.

Now the citizens look forward to getting back 200 hryvnias from their own savings lost during the sovok era.

But Boogie-slavska thinks the government ought to keep the money, because even though it has done nothing for the people, except blow them up in coal mines and apartment houses, giving even a paltry sum back to the people is somehow "giving away the store".

Not to mention having the morality of a "loose woman."

So Boogie-slavska believes that she knows better than the people do as to what to do - with their own money.

It seems to me that Boogie-girl's brain cells are clogged up with sovok confusion and stupidity.

Votes in the mayoral election in Kyiv are going for US $100.

http://unian.net/eng/news/news-249601.html

So, let me see - giving the people back 200 hryvnia of their own money that they had in a government savings bank, instead of letting government oligarchs keep it, is a bad thing, according to Boogie-girl.

But selling your vote in Kyiv for far more than 200 measly hryvnia -

she says nothing about that.

The vote is a solemn right, and, as Tymoshenko said, a solemn obligation "святий обовязок."

It must really be worth something to stay in government, if a few wealthy individuals are buying votes for US $100.

It was 200 dollars, but it still doesn’t compensate for the savings “lost” to the powers-that-be she represents. Plus, the inflationary effect of these payments remains open to debate.

The Party of Regions wants stabilnist. Based on its current portfolio, stabilnist means cheap labor, cheap natural resources, cheap environment, cheap currency, cheap living standards. It’s a zero-sum game: The richer the people, the poorer the oligarchs.

Kyiv offers fantastic returns on investment. If you can extract $500 worth of land grabs from every vote, why not invest $100 per capita?